A Flawed Gun Ban And Ethically Compromised Officials

I am writing to express my utter shock at the Attorney General and Democratic party's current push for an "assault weapon" ban and to highlight some troubling ethical implications that attend this process.

The Attorney General has produced the attached request document with the intention of using it to promote his sales ban. Here are the some reasons why this request is profoundly troubling. He is using misleading and/or irrelevant numbers to encourage support for this egregious attack on our civil liberties.

• The claim that "assault weapons" are 11x more likely to be used in a mass shooting than a handgun is irrelevant. Mass shooting events are extremely rare and have involved handguns to deadly effect many times. The bottom line though is that rifles are very rarely used to commit murders. In 2016, the FBI noted 7,105 murders with handguns and only 374 murders using *any* kind of rifle, semiautomatic or manually operated. 1,604 murders were committed with knives, 472 with blunt objects, 656  without any weapon other than their fists and feet. Rifles are not a significant crime problem. The hand-wringing claim that "assault rifles"...all rifles... are deadlier than handguns is thus irrelevant.
• The claim that "assault weapons" are more likely to kill law enforcement involves sleight of hand by the Violence Policy Center, the most extreme gun ban advocates in the US. These are the same people who first promoted banning these guns by confusing the public into thinking they were machine guns. Why is the AG quoting such compromised resources? In any case, it is more likely that law enforcement (who overwhelmingly support responsible gun ownership) would be HURT by banning them. Most developments in this type of gun have been made by citizen innovation, e.g., for competition.
• The claim that only 2% of Americans own "assault weapons" is specious at best. First, it includes populous areas with low gun ownership, as opposed to Washington state where ownership is 33% to 50% of the population. Second, nobody knows how many guns of this type are owned because they are generally understood not to be criminal weapons....while they are also the most popular rifles in America. Finally, using that 2% as an excuse for attacking gun owners' rights because "there aren't that many of them" is a disturbing line of thought, coming from a state Attorney General.

I have alluded to the deeply flawed logic, misleading sound bites and opportunistic targeting of the population the Attorney General is meant to serve, in his communications to the legislature. Now let me highlight some profound ethical question which these actions raise.

• Why is AG Ferguson distributing this misleading document at the behest of Michael Bloomberg, a billionaire on the other side of the country...and attacking the rights of Washington state gun owners? How much more blatant does this conflict of interest need to be before it produces some investigation and possible reprimand or removal from office?
• Why is AG Ferguson sending this communication in the form of a professionally produced gun control mailer (included below) and  how much has this cost the state? Why does the state tolerate such gross misuse of its scant resources as this marketing type presentation and the Attorney General's raft of frivolous lawsuits against President Trump? Is this being looked at by state accountants and justified?
• Why was AG Ferguson so obsessively interested in attacking the rule of law by promoting initiative 1639...again, with Bloomberg funding...when 1639 was so blatantly an illegal initiative? At the same time, he turns the other way and ignores Seattle's declaration as a "Sanctuary City". 

This apparent contempt for state law and the rights of state gun owners...the double standard as to which legal violations will be winked at and which group of honest citizens who have had (up to this point) extreme motivation to be law abiding cannot lead our state down a good path.

I urge you to reject this deeply flawed attack on our rights and to consider whether AG Ferguson's conduct is as grossly unethical as it appears and what negative legal consequences that conduct should incur. If you do not, we will be forced to consider why you desire to be complicit in unethical activities and spurious attacks on the civil liberties of Washingtonians.